Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62017TN0440

    Case T-440/17: Action brought on 4 July 2017 — Arca Capital Bohemia v Commission

    OJ C 347, 16.10.2017, p. 25–26 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    16.10.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 347/25

    Action brought on 4 July 2017 — Arca Capital Bohemia v Commission

    (Case T-440/17)

    (2017/C 347/34)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Arca Capital Bohemia a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Nedelka, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul Commission decision COMP/D3/PB/2017/026659 of 15 March 2017, refusing access to documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 relating to case COMP/SA.17006 — C 27/04 (ex CZ 49/03) — Agrobanka Praha a.s. and GE Capital Bank a.s;

    —

    annul Commission decision No C(2017) 3130 final of 4 May 2017 confirming Decision No COMP/D3/PB/2017/026659 of 15 March 2017;

    —

    order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that the exceptions laid down in Article 4(2), first and third indents, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 were misapplied.

    —

    The applicant alleges in this regard that the defendant misapplied relevant case-law which, in its view, does not apply to cases in which the administrative file has been closed. Also, in State aid cases, there is a very strong public interest in obtaining as much information as possible in order to control State bodies and different considerations should also apply to arguments based on commercial interests than those which pertain in merger or cartel cases.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.

    —

    In this regard the applicant advances arguments relating to the reasons behind the privatisation of the bank in question and the stability of the Czech banking sector.
    Top